New right-to-buy boom: 1,000 people a week signing up to housing association sell-off ahead of launch of new scheme
. Scheme gives discounts of up to 70 per cent to all 1.3million families
. 5,200 housing association tenants registered their interest in the first month
. Ministers to launch a new home-owning ISA at the beginning of DecemberBy JACK DOYLE POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT FOR THE DAILY MAILhttp://www.dailymail...New-right-bu...

More than 1,000 housing association tenants every week are signing up to buy their own home.

Why does it need replaced necessarily? If there are say, 100 social homes, a waiting list of 20, and 10 take the offer to buy, then there are still 20 on the list, but there are not necessarily fewer available properties. I think there is a wrong assumption that people who would take up Right to Buy would be moving out anyway, thus freeing up stock, but that's not true - they are unlikely to move out of social housing unless they get a hand to do so. So buy selling off stock, I don't agree that stock needs to be replaced 'one for one'. Asiprationally, yes, but not as a condition.
In Scotland our government is ending Right to Buy - something I fundamentally disagree with. They use a miniroty of cases to justify, but if ever there was an opportunity to allow people on low incomes a chance to own their home, this was the only chance.

In effect, the SNP condem people on lower incomes to rent for the rest of their lives - right through retirement. Ironic for a party that claims it's the party of 'social justice'! Also ironic that our First Minister's parents bought their house under Right to Buy.....

Is there anything to prevent people buying their HA house, and at a later date renting it out?
Uncontrolled buy-to-let is, IMO, pretty much the root of the housing crisis. I probably shouldn't say that on a property forum...

The problem as I see complete mismanagement of social housing over the years. Firstly - there is abuse by what is probably a small minority letting out. Controls could and should be placed on this as a condition of RTB.

The other is the issue of who should be in social housing. It should be there to support those in need, and on the lowest incomes. As things stand, once you're in one, you're there for life, no matter your income. That is fundamentally wrong. There is a sense of entitlement to social housing that I disagree with - I see it in papers everyday about how a tenant thinks it's disgusting that they are being moved because the scheme is being razed - there is a perception that in renting you have the expectation to a home for life and any time a landlord wants to move tenants out for what ever reason, it' like a breach of human rights.
If we go on the premise that social housing is for those most in need and on low incomes, why would we not want to help them on the ladder, that they are not forever beholden to renting?

My grandfather refused to buy his house from the LA and was paying over £400 a month every month into his 90's. That was his choice, but I know first hand what renting into retirement does.

I think those so keen to dismiss RTB forget that when you buy a house, generally you have no mortgage when your income plummets at retirement. For those renting, their income plummets...and rent carries on.

And no - comparing private housing to social housing is not correct. The bottom line is that social housing needs a complete shake up to get it working properly for the right people. Yes, that migt mean building more homes, but that's regardless of RTB.

Cornwall and parts of coastline-Wales are testimony to the folly of thinking that right-to-buy increases property ownership to the benefit of the wider economy - and therefore society generally.

Local people renting the LA properties bought at the discount, stayed there long enough to keep the discount and then sold up to outsiders wanting holiday homes. "Friends" of ours (although we've had no contact with them for several years because they've "moved on") bought their "Cornish escape" last year to add to their Edgbaston, Clapham Common and somewhere-in-Warwickshire homes. (Only the Cornish one is ex-council.)

It's silly ideas like that being mooted that make me not want to return to being a landlord.

I agree it would be a ridiculous idea, and it would strike at the heart of private property ownership, which would be anti-democratic. But from a long-term private tenant's view, it would seem on principle unfair that they could not buy the property that they've lived in for x years (at a discount), while further down the road there may be social housing in which tenants could buy their housing.

Which ultimately comes down to restricted supply, which comes down to the high cost of land, in turn caused by the Planning system.
Allow anyone to build houses wherever they want (subject to Building Regs) and housing would become affordable overnight.

50% or so of the Cornish economy is based on tourism, so selling the property as a holiday home is probably economically better for the area. It is also a lot less environmentally damaging than mining, agriculture and fishing.
Not an answer, just an observation.

Another way to think of housing is the static model.
For every two people in an area, we build one home. If someone moves out the area, then that house is demolished if it cannot be reassigned to another two people.
This does not stop growth, it is just a fixed ratio to local population.

As for right to buy. I think that there are several issues that get confused. Local Authorities built housing to service local industries and commerce, this was a social commitment, private landlords do not really contribute to this commitment.
Now housing is considered an industry in itself, which is barmy when you think about it as it is just another pyramid selling scheme.

Which ultimately comes down to restricted supply, which comes down to the high cost of land, in turn caused by the Planning system.
Allow anyone to build houses wherever they want (subject to Building Regs) and housing would become affordable overnight.

I agree, we should lift planning restrictions, charge people the going rate to connect to services.
Also allows the opportunity to stop developments just as easily, you just buy up the land and don't build on it.

This is the craziest, back of a fag packet, proposal to come forward for a long time. It’s supposed to work like this:

Give tenants of housing associations the right to buy (it was a manifesto commitment, so they have to do it)

Tenants get up to £103,900 discount in London, £77,900 elsewhere, after just 3 years

If your house is valued at say £225k, after three years the Government (ie us) give you the full discount to buy it. Quite a good return, one might say, especially as you’ve only paid about 17k rent, and you've had your repairs done for free during this time

The money to pay for this comes from selling expensive Council housing when it falls vacant.

In most London Boroughs and many areas of the south east, virtually all housing will qualify. So it will reduce the rented stock available to people on the waiting list. In parts of Cambridge, they predict it will wipe out all Council housing (perhaps the Government's intention)

The money will also pay for a one-to-one replacement by the housing association that sells to the Right to Buy purchaser (it isn’t used to repay debt)

The record for doing this isn’t good - over the past 10 years, the rate of replacement has been 9 sales for 1 replacement

The economics of this simply don't work, as there's not enough income from sales to pay for it all

Over 40% of properties sold under RTB are now owned by private landlords, who mostly let the to people on Housing Benefit at a much higher rent than the housing association used to charge. So we pay for it twice over.

So as Joiner says, it’s a disaster for LAs and pretty bad for housing associations, who will be required to sell of their rented housing (what they were set up to do) and replace it with shared ownership or discounted market housing.

I’ve nothing against people owning their own home, but why should they be given huge handouts to help them? Where is the help for others who don’t happen to be lucky enough to live in a HA property?

[*]Over 40% of properties sold under RTB are now owned by private landlords, who mostly let the to people on Housing Benefit at a much higher rent than the housing association used to charge. So we pay for it twice over.

This is the crux of the matter. We are paying money straight into the pockets of BTL landlords, via housing benefit. Of course we blame the 'welfare scroungers', who are simply passing the money on, we don't blame the opportunistic landlords.

The system rewards people who happened to have some capital and be in the right place at the right time. That is not an enterprising economy.